Either one ideologoy — religion or diversity — triumphs.

be, one or the other, at 5:40 am EST on January 4, 2008

Commitment versus Conversion

On the one hand I respect the fact that Calvin is upfront and the religious commitment is part of their contract—Isom knew this when signing on. However, they are doing themselves a disservice. Just because someone attends one particular church does not make them a good role model for that faith. I find someone of strong faith a better advocate for the religious principles taught at that institution than some who attend that church regularly. I’ve seen Protestants teach in Catholic institutions and Mormons teach at Baptist institutions. Did that make them weaker institutions? I don’t think so.

Nancy Sanders, Asst Dean, at 8:10 am EST on January 4, 2008

Religion

I know there are religious people out there, but I just don’t understand them. I grew up among conservative evangelicals, but I didn’t get them either. They might as well have been speaking Martian for all I knew. So it is impossible for me to imagine in any comprehensive way the issues involved here, or to take them very seriously. A consequence of my secularism, no doubt. But talk about identity politics!

Joseph Duemer, at 8:10 am EST on January 4, 2008

Shocked

Shocking, just shocking.

It would be like demanding all-Democrat faculties hire a non-Democrat. Or Larry Summers to publicly apologize for a third time.

Shocking, just shocking.

Russ, at 9:35 am EST on January 4, 2008

Are all students bound by the same requirement? What a narrown, suffocating environment there must be on that campus. I agree with Rick. Public funds should not be used to support private institutions that practice discrimination and coercion.

Jim, at 9:35 am EST on January 4, 2008

Not suffocating — communicating

As someone who was raised in the Christian Reformed Church but who attended a Nazarene college, I can tell you that the atmosphere is not suffocating, but rather a community of believers working together to understand how their faith and modern life intersect and inform each other. Although I was of a very different mind than my fellow students on certain points of theology (predestination, infant baptism, etc.), we shared a lot more than if I had been at a secular university. I worked at the school as a staff member after graduation, and knew that, however sad I felt about it, I could not be hired because of my denomination. So my path has led elsewhere, and I do not fault the college for their requirement.

Christian College Alum, at 10:05 am EST on January 4, 2008

Maintaining the financial support of parents of students is the only real issue here: this denomination (the CRC) is well known for seeing itself as the “one, true” church, so parents of prospective students would not countenance having a de facto “heretic” on the faculty for fear of the influence such a person would have on their children. This would throw the entire world and life view of the denomination into chaos. The attempt to gain students from other groups also has essentially inancial motives as well: there is not an attempt to embrace “diversity” or multiple perspectives but rather to bring such persons “into the fold” (with the institution’s excellent academic standards the initial drawing card for attendance). In any case, the CRC sees this institution as needing to retain its “purity” in order that successive generations of students will be sent off by successive generations of parents to receive the “essential” preparation for denominational perpetuation.

I’m not against tradition, but this particular tradition is fundamentally paranoid about the “other". One needs to wonder how much a tradition like this is worth if it needs to be defended so fanatically.

I make these remarks as a former “insider” (attended said institution for more than three years before moving on to a public institution) and as the son of a pastor in this denomination.

Jonathan, at 10:10 am EST on January 4, 2008

What happened to “discriminatingly good taste"?

It seems like “diversity” is always good and “discrimination” is always bad. In other words, if I have a definition between right and wrong and someone else comes along with a more liberal view, then something’s wrong with me if I don’t loosen up and show an intolerance to that more flexible view. From the other side, are those others being intolerant of my views and restricting the diversity of contrasting views? This whole diversity issue is a real double-edged sword that basically boils down to “my right to do what I want.” In my classes we discuss how to draw the line between using lablels like “stubborn” and “principled” when people and literary characters are resistant to change. As usual, it ends up being a repeat of “be reasonable — do it my way"!

bluechip, Faculty at Green River Community College, at 10:25 am EST on January 4, 2008

What’s stopping memberships to 2 churches?

One resolution of this dilemma would be to allow Dr. Isom to join a CRC church AND a Baptist church simultaneously. I’ve seen such “affiliate” memberships allowed in churches of the Reformed tradition, especially for college students who may have more than one spiritual “home” due to geographical distance. Here, sociological distance is as good a reason as for having two (or more!) spiritual homes at once.

David, PhD, MDiv, at 10:35 am EST on January 4, 2008

Internal and External Philosophical Conflict

I, too, admire Calvin’s up-front approach to requirements and their beliefs. I don’t think there is anything wrong with stating what they expect. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with them expecting their teachers and faculty to hold similar (or at least not totally conflictive) beliefs. And I certainly don’t think there is anything wrong with students who want to attend college with their fellow believers, so long as they are not harassing others.

As for mandating formal church affiliation? That’s like mandating everyone belong to a union or every English professor belong to the Writer’s Guild or every human being in the college be registered to vote. It’s unreasonable and discriminatory.

Personally, I loathe this kind of compartmentalizing on any front. It IS limiting, and if it’s a mandate, one wonders whether or not the faculty and students really DO believe in the church. It seems to me freedom to choose would exhibit greater demonstration of belief than any mandate. If they don’t HAVE to go to church but still do, that’s what really says something.

Ms. Isom has a few choices. She could probably appeal. She could probably attend her Baptist church without officially joining. Or she could move to another college. But she should not be forced to play a game that assaults her beliefs or her heritage.

kgotthardt, at 10:45 am EST on January 4, 2008

“Using inflammatory language, such as the word “fanatic,” can make one seem reactionary, and perhaps less enlightened than the institution being criticized.”

More reactionary than perhaps, requiring someone to belong to a certain church??? I am not the one requiring someone to do something that might go against their own freedom of religious choice. I would have to be extremely fanatic for that.

“Did you do a lot of research before arriving at that conclusion?”

Yes, my entire life to date spent in churches, with ‘Religious” people, and working at various colleges. I have witnessed the hypocrisy among “true believers” firsthand. This is just another example.

“...a significant number of Calvin employees and alum are deeply disappointed by this decision.” Just NOT dissapointed enough to stop it.

Actions speak louder than words. If this professor is allowed to continue on to a tenure track, then maybe I will believe that true change is happening there.

And why should anyone have to belong to two churches in order to secure their employment? Religious “workarounds” don’t seem to work very well.

R.F., at 11:10 am EST on January 4, 2008

Ashamed of my alma mater

As a woman of color who graduated from Calvin in 2005, this whole story deeply hurt me. I spent much of my free time as a student at Calvin trying to work on the front lines of the fight against racism. There were many students who championed diversity as well as faculty and staff, but it was obvious that what was said at Calvin in terms of multiculturalism goals and efforts to increase diversity was very far from the truth of what was done in terms of policy and procedure. I can remember meeting with the college’s president at his home for a dinner. I was in a student group called the Multicultural Student Advisory Board (MSAB) The three faculty requirements were discussed as extreme barriers to increasing true racial/cultural diversity at Calvin. President Byker gave much of the same rhetoric as was found in this article. I remember being disappointed, but feeling young and helpless. Looking back, I wish I would have stood up right then and there to express the outrage of such standards and expose the hypocrisy. Exclusion has been prioritized over diversity. It is truly sad and, in my opinion, very un-Christ like. I am ashamed that an institution that had a positive influence on 4 very identity forming years of my life would take a stance that indirectly disregards me and others who look like me. Calvin cannot have it both ways. A small group of my friends from Calvin and I plan to organize and make our voices heard now in a way they should have been heard back when we were students. I believe Calvin can change and there are many good people there who want to see change happen. I hope that one day I can claim my alma mater with contentment and pride knowing that what was wrong was made right. I wish Dr. Isom all the best and am so glad she was willing to take a stand reminding all of us to do the same.

Anissa Eddie, MSW, at 11:55 am EST on January 4, 2008

religious confusioin

The mouthpiece for Calvin stated that: ““The history of Christian institutions of higher education in this country justifies caution in this area. Nearly all Christian colleges and universities that distanced themselves from their founding denominations and theological traditions eventually also drifted away from being Christian in any meaningful way.”

I wonder what Bible she or the Board has read? My reading of Matthew, for example, sees a Jesus who turned his back on the rule-makers and the bean-counters: Matt 23-24: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!”

Before I start a quotation war, I am NOT a Biblical scholar, just someone who finds “us vs. them,” holier than thou thinking dangerous at the least. I see current politicans trying to out do each other’s religiousness, then trashing human beings and the needs they face. Similary, I now see a college board quoting “law” while ignoring justice and faith. I fear such thinking in today’s world.

Theron, at 12:00 pm EST on January 4, 2008

Playing the race card to get out of a commitment she agreed to when hired is wrong in my opinion. I was interviewed at Pepperdine University and withdrew my application because they require 25% of job-related activity to be devoted to religion. If this person wishes to be Baptist, she should seek a different job. Being Baptist is not inseparable from being African American — just from being Southern. What does it say about her religious feeling that she cannot worship without self-segregation?

Mary, at 12:55 pm EST on January 4, 2008

R.F.,

“Yes, my entire life to date spent in churches, with ‘Religious” people, and working at various colleges. I have witnessed the hypocrisy among “true believers” firsthand. This is just another example.”

Did any of these colleges include Calvin College? If the answer is “no,” then I stand by my original comment. Making generalizations of that sort could be construed as perpetuating the same sort of mentality that you obviously oppose.

“Just NOT dissapointed enough to stop it.”

“If this professor is allowed to continue on to a tenure track, then maybe I will believe that true change is happening there.”

Allowed by whom? Do you think that the director of Food Services (a randomly chosen position: I have no idea what this particular individual may think on this topic) has the power to grant (or deny) tenure? What about a student in a Biology seminar class? Or any of the others who have been lumped together as fanatics or hypocrites? Dr. Isom is still teaching at the college. Many here hope for, and want to actively work toward, changes that allow her to stay, assuming she would even want to at this point. Since you have worked in colleges before, I assume you know that changing long-standing policies is rarely a quick or painless procedure.

Bottom line, this makes Calvin look bad. Those associated with the college know that it makes Calvin look bad. We regret that, and desperately desire healing and change, a fact that is swept aside when those not intimately involved in the situation are quick to write us all off as fanatics.

Voice from Inside, at 12:55 pm EST on January 4, 2008

More Christian Hypocrisy

Just another example of christians waving the bloody stump of discrimination and then claiming the right to practice it.

BTW-I work at a predominantly LDS school and no one expected me to join the church.

They new about my positions on things before they hired me and did so anyway.

Utahprof, at 4:30 pm EST on January 4, 2008

Hypocrisy

“Did any of these colleges include Calvin College? If the answer is “no,” then I stand by my original comment. Making generalizations of that sort could be construed as perpetuating the same sort of mentality that you obviously oppose.”

SO only those who work there can truly understand. What a lame excuse!

“Allowed by whom? Do you think that the director of Food Services (a randomly chosen position: I have no idea what this particular individual may think on this topic) has the power to grant (or deny) tenure? What about a student in a Biology seminar class? Or any of the others who have been lumped together as fanatics or hypocrites? Dr. Isom is still teaching at the college. Many here hope for, and want to actively work toward, changes that allow her to stay, assuming she would even want to at this point. Since you have worked in colleges before, I assume you know that changing long-standing policies is rarely a quick or painless procedure. Bottom line, this makes Calvin look bad. Those associated with the college know that it makes Calvin look bad. We regret that, and desperately desire healing and change, a fact that is swept aside when those not intimately involved in the situation are quick to write us all off as fanatics.”

Make up your mind, when you say “we” are you speaking for the college or yourself? If you are not speaking as the officially elected representative, then you should not be putting words in your colleagues or students mouth. It is a cop out to now say “well what is one student or administrator to do?” I am not the one who put forth the original “we". and yes, I do believe that if enough of you confronted you r board you might see some change rather than just hoping for it.

Further, it is a basic tenet of both democracy and academia, that one need not have “intimate” details to make an observation. I stand by my original observation, Fanatics are out of control. Whether you are one or not I have no idea, but since your board made the decison...

R. F., at 4:30 pm EST on January 4, 2008

It seems rather odd that exemptions would be granted for ordained clergy of other denominations but not to mere church goers. Understandably, ordained clergy can less easily switch to Reformed or Reformed-affiliated denomination, but if Calvin is so concerned about their religious identity, shouldn’t they prohibit non-Calvinist clergy from teaching? Why not go all the way into the hole they’ve dug themselves?

Angelo, Professor at Liberal Arts College, at 4:30 pm EST on January 4, 2008

Calvin and Iowa caucuses

It was interesting to read about Calvin’s decision the day after Democrats in Iowa, a state which is about 92 percent white, propelled Barack Obama into the position of Democratic frontrunner. So, even if Barack Obama wanted to teach on the Calvin faculty he could not so long as he continued to be a member of his Chicago UCC church? Preserving identiy is one thing, but such preservation seems to shade into a sectarian narrowness which contrasts sharply with Galatians 3:28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

Christian college poli sci prof, at 4:30 pm EST on January 4, 2008

Context

Henry:

I think your implication is wrong. You — and the Calvin administrators quoted — assume that a religiously-based institution cannot be true to its faith without coercion and segregation. I think that is fundamentally wrong. As I noted above, just a half hour west of Calvin a similarly Dutch-Conservative College, Hope in Holland, MI, with a similar mission for the Reformed Church in America (and similarly linked to an adjoining seminary), manages to survive quite well as a religiously-based institution without any apparent need to control how their faculty worships or where the children of faculty attend school.

The question that has arisen here is about a different contradiction — Calvin claims to be seeking diversity, and wishes the rights, prerogatives, and supports due a “public university” (by which I mean one accepting government money and support on many levels — not simply through tuition grants and loans). Those two things seem incompatible to me with their hiring policies.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 4:30 pm EST on January 4, 2008

I still think that what many naysayers here really oppose is the idea that Calvin College should be able to tell faculty where to attend church, what statement(s) of faith that they must abide by (at least in the classroom and as a representative of Calvin), etc. If this seems like “the bloody stump of discrimination,” then so be it. I know many in academia who believe that if one holds any sort of belief in the supernatural, then one must by definition be some sort of religious lunatic or narrow-minded bigot. As some say here, perhaps Calvin allowing dual membership in a different church might be a tentative solution to the problem at hand. But what it really sounds like is that Professor Isom doesn’t feel comfortable any longer identifying with the conservative Dutch Reformed theological and ecclesiastical world. And this is fine, but I don’t see why Calvin should bend over backwards to accommodate Professor Isom here. Professor Isom now wishes to selectively bend the rules for her own benefit and to still receive a paycheck on her own religious and theological terms. Why shouldn’t other (even all) Calvin faculty be able to similarly demand exemptions as well. And as far as Hope College, Hope is affiliated with the more liberal Reformed Church in America (RCA), which is a very different theological entity than the CRC. The CRC is a much more traditionalist denomination that expects much more theological “precision” from its faculty and clergy (though there is currently internal combat taking place in the CRC to “liberalize” the denomination). The more liberal RCA is in ecumenical fellowship with the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, etc. These more “liberal” denominations sanction beliefs and practices that are unacceptable to the CRC. For some writers here, the CRC might come off as appearing to be fascists, bigots, intolerant reactionaries, etc. But no one is forcing anyone to work for a CRC institution here. And the CRC has the perfect right to insist upon standards that might seem “extremely narrow” or “heavy handed” to the individual not identifying with conservative, traditional Reformed theology. Calvin may be trying to seek ethnic faculty diversity, but not at the cost of its conservative Reformed theological identity. In other words, they are looking for Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc. who are also advocates of traditional Reformed/Calvinist theology. Maybe this is an ethnic/theological/ecclesiastical oxymoron at present...But so be it. Freedom to follow and practice religious principles in this country means that private, religiously-based schools are free to hire/fire faculty whom they deem to be in conformity with the religious identity and mission of the institution....No matter how obnoxious such principles might appear to the “general academic community” or public at large. Why, e.g. should a traditionalist Eastern Orthodox institution be forced to hire and give tenure to an openly practicing and advocating homosexual faculty member for fear of a “discrimination lawsuit,” even if hiring such an individual would be considered completely wrong by Orthodox Church teachings? And so far, “accepting government money and support” does not carry with it the strings of being forced to abide by secularist and/or progressive/liberal ethical and religious ideals and practices. Probably many in academia would love to see such a requirement so as to sock it to religiously traditionalist institutions on account of the overwhelmingly liberal and secularist predominance in academic circles. But there are still many such traditionalist, religious-based institutions out there that have students receiving government grants, loans, etc. and which also receive other forms of government monies. Until there is a national outcry and political movement to more thoroughly secularize and/or cut off such funding to traditionalist religious institutions, Calvin seems to be perfectly within its prerogatives to insist upon its position here....No matter how “obnoxious” such a position might seem to many writing here.

Henry, at 8:35 pm EST on January 4, 2008

Ira:

Obviously, you must not be aware that there are literally scores of religiously-based institutions out there in the US that both “require an active part of a particular religion” for “employment” purposes, and, which simultaneously receive government taxpayer-funded support of some sort. In fact, I work at such an institution...I can be terminated for going against my contractual obligation to sign (annually) an institutional statement of religious commitment and/or for non-involvement in a regular religious body of worship. This comes with the territory with virtually any “seriously” religiously-based institution of higher education. Obviously, those institutions that are less robustly attached to a religious tradition or that are more nominal in religious identity would not require such formalities. But I’m guessing that, in your opinion, US history has yet to witness a “reasonable Supreme Court” to rule to your liking in this matter, since such funding has occurred (and continues to occur) for quite some time. And your idea of “discrimination” would be someone else’s notion of “the right thing to do.” It seems that what you are really saying is this: “I believe that traditionalist, religiously-based institutions should be cut off from tax-payer government funding, but more ‘open’ and ‘progressive’ religious institutions should still continue to receive such funding.” But again, the differentiation is in the eye (and religious/theological commitments) of the beholder as to what is “discriminatory” and what is “open.” All of this is caught up in the ongoing American politico-cultural battles related to religion, secularism, governmental relationships to religion....even the definition of what exactly constitutes “religion.” And typically, it all comes down to nasty, bitter, vindictive political power struggles. Actually, my fear is that, one day, and similarly to dynamics in other religiously divided and troubled countries around the world, the US might witness unimaginable civil ugliness (even violence) related to the brewing struggles over religion, secularism, the role of the government, etc. More and more, American culture and general moral/ethical frameworks are unraveling and fragmenting....And traditionalist, religiously-based institutions of higher education are more and more seemingly going to be caught in the vicious crossfire as a consequence.

Henry, at 10:15 am EST on January 5, 2008

Christian? ... Cut Me Some Slack

I counted thirteen instances of “Christian college,” “Christian university,” or “Christian traditions” in the article and comments that followed.

Use your “find/replace” keys to change every one of those instances of “Christian” to “Church” and you will greatly improve the accuracy of this discourse. Make no mistake about it, this has nothing to do with Christianity ... it is all about the Church. If anything, the church membership principle and its implementation in this case are wonderfully pro-Church and remarkably anti-Christian.

If you check out the Calvin College “Statement of Purpose,” you will find, “We seek to gather diverse people and gifts around a common pledge and purpose; pursue justice, compassion, and discipline; and provide a training ground for the life of Christian virtue.” Take my advice – and for the sake of accuracy – and change “Christian virtue” to “Church virtue.”

And talk about “gifts” ... you’ve got to love a college that is faithfully committed to principle in matters like this one but is quite relaxed when it accepts the largess ($10 million) of the family of the CEO of Blackwater (his mother has just gone off the Calvin College Board of Trustees).

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/company_profile/core_values.html

I especially like the statements of concern about this matter expressed by various students, faculty, alumni, and friends of Calvin College. With the concern of a hundred Calvin College faculty members and $5.00 you can purchase an overpriced, high calorie, nutritionally vacuous cup of “coffee” at Starbucks.

Frizbane Manley, at 10:15 am EST on January 5, 2008

First Amendment, etc.

The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, not from supporting a variety of religious purposes. Were the Congress to ordain Calvinism as the state religion, or require government officials to be Calvinist, the Supreme Court would rightly overrule it. However, Calvin College does not “establish” (note the quotation marks Socol uses) religion by going about its business as a Reformed institution. There is well established legal support for this.

Socol suggests that a “reasonable” Supreme Court would have trouble with this. Well, I guess that makes the current and all previous courts “unreasonable.” Mr. Socol has to live with the Constitution we have, not the one he wishes we had.

A second issue, that I don’t think anyone has mentioned, is that it is probably illegal for Calvin to have two sets of requirements for faculty. One group of faculty have to be members of the specified denominations, others for some reason not. That would not stand up in court.

As has been noted above, most religious institutions that do not maintain the religious integrity of their faculty over time cease to be strongly religious. There are a few exceptions, but for every exception there are many, many cases where what was once a Christian college is now a college that may on occasion politely tip its hat in the direction of the faith that founded it.

And I do find it interesting that the pressure for diversity, in many people’s minds, trumps everything else, leading perhaps to homogenization, and less diversity.

Aunt Agatha, at 10:20 am EST on January 5, 2008

Liz, Catholics are Christians.

Mary, at 3:50 pm EST on January 5, 2008

Mechanism for Change

I think what some commenters are forgetting is that at Calvin, there is a mechanism in place for change. That is, Dr. Isom joined the faculty with full knowledge of the requirement, and also with full knowledge of the possibility of an exemption. That exemptions have been granted in the past, to me, means that it is reasonable to assume that such an exemption—for a truly compelling reason—would be granted. That she also had the backing of her chair and the department also makes the argument for an exemption compelling.

It is not the same as a student looking at a syllabus on the first day of class and then trying to argue about a 0 that they received later. It is entirely different and a bit more complex.

And calling Dr. Isom’s request playing the “race card” (which is a completely overused and counterproductive “argument") is disingenuous and silly.

Kimberly Davis, Graduate Student at University of Georgia, at 6:25 pm EST on January 5, 2008

Last thought

Aunt Agatha again brandishes the notion that Calvin’s decisions make them “more Christian,” which is, of course, as debatable as it is insulting. But I need to point out that I did not suggests a “federal university,” but a “federally funded university,” which is what Calvin is (as well as Hope, Brigham Young, Notre Dame, Boston College, etc) — that is, an institution of higher learning which accepts federal money. My question is not a “red herring.” My question is real: Can a college/university, privately supported but accepting federal money (via student loans/grants, etc) bar all employees from attending church? Require atheism? Would those of you supporting Calvin’s position here really not protest the firing of a professor at that institution for insisting on the right to worship God as he/she pleases?

If “Aunt Agatha” wishes a more “honest” way to see this she need look no further than Michigan’s Hillsdale College which refuses these federal supports, or to quote another college that has made the same decision (Grove City), “As a private, Christian college, we have legitimate concerns about federal interference in what we teach and how we teach it. This was the most compelling reason for our decision to withdraw from the program.” — http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3566062.html

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 6:35 am EST on January 6, 2008

Ira:

I’m wondering if you can address the point that David Wright made early in this discussion. Namely, that federal student loans and grants do not support the institution, but rather the individual student who accepts these monies and applies them toward matriculation at a religious institution such as Calvin. This makes good sense to me, and is — it seems — an important distinction. Yet you continue to focus on Calvin accepting government money. Are you referring to something else entirely? Just curious.

John, quick question, at 1:00 pm EST on January 6, 2008

Diversity versus Ideology

What I find even more fascinating (and perversely encourgaing) than the article itself are the wide range of these comments, most of which, even where I disagree with them, are thoughtful and reflective.

By the way, I am a union lobbyist during the week and a church music director at other times.

Steve Finner, Political Coordinator at United Professions AFT Vermont, at 1:00 pm EST on January 6, 2008

“I would also argue that, while part of being an academic is making judgments about material we read, another part is being willing/able to revise these judgments if contrary evidence is presented.”

VERY true! However, we know academics, politicians, and too many others are often unwilling to admit that perhaps their initial assessments were indeed, wrong—sometimes, VERY wrong.

: )

kgotthardt, at 8:25 pm EST on January 6, 2008

in the minority

My biggest concern in this article was only mentioned by two commentors, Thomas being the first.The quote by MLK at the intro of the article fits with the profs actions more so than the actions of the college. The prof is quoted as saying “Though there are CRC churches and communities that are striving to reflect a multicultural vision in the church’s make-up and worship content, they are not ‘there’ yet. As a person who has long worked towards those ends in predominately white settings, I find myself at a place where, for emotional, social, and spiritual health, I need a place of worship that is already consistent with my culture and able to grapple with issues of race in ways which make it a respite, a re-charging and growing place for me, as opposed to another location where I must ‘work’ and where I am ‘other.’”

This concerns me heavily because she went to a college that is struggling with diversity as a member of a minority group, and what did she expect? It was going to be a challenge, the entire college ‘isn’t there yet’... why would she expect the church (that she agreed to attend by accepting the position) to be any different? Diversity will only occur when those in the minority can step up to the challenge to be there and help the insitution to ‘get there’ rather than standing back and waiting for it to just magically happen.

Why not help ‘get it there’? Why not put up a fine fight and help create a tolerant environment? How long would MLK have waited if he was content to stay in the black community segregated until the rest of the country ‘got there’ on its own? Change doesn’t just happen, it has to be stimulated, motivated, initiated.

Her reason for the exception wasn’t religious, it wasn’t denominational, it wasn’t anything except that she was uncomfortable in a predominantly white church and wanted to attend a black church. She said it herself, so if her only reason for exception was preference, there is no wonder why it was rejected. To claim that this situation has anything to do with racial discrimination on the part of the college is wrong... it sounds like racial discrimination on the part of the professor. She is deciding that willfully segregating herself to a black church is in her best interest. Would she feel that way if the college had told her that because she was black she had to attend the black church instead of the white church? It feels to me like she is willfully choosing to undo what MLK had tried so hard to change. Why would you willfully segregate yourself?

Also to claim that religious beliefs in Christianity are tied to ones ethnicity would be wrong indeed. Christianity itself bypassed the national requirements held by the Jewish people. When Christ came and he was rejected by the Jews as the messiah, he opened it up to the Gentiles (non-Jews) which included all other races, genders, ethnicities, etc. Christ taught those who needed teaching, sinners, tax collectors, harlots, all those who were outcasts, but had a true desire for spiritual things, for knowledge and acted upon that knowledge stimulating change.

The fact that it is a Christian College would hopefully allow the college to realize that ethnicity, race, etc should have no effect on a persons Christian belief system. The same should be realized by those attending such a College. They should be able to accept that despite the church being predominantly white, it shouldn’t matter when ones relationship is with God.

Underdog, thinker, at 11:05 am EST on January 7, 2008

I had the misfortune to attend Malone College for 2 years in the early 1980s (this was largely my parents idea). This whole issue at Calvin College reminds me so much of the pettiness, parochialism, and narrow mindedness I dealt with at Malone. It seems to exemplify the hypocrisy of higher ed institutions which wrap themselves in the label “Christian College".

Mark, at 9:35 pm EST on January 11, 2008

Seeing red on Self-Segregation

Why is it that white students, faculty, and officials cloistering themselves in a virtually all white, denominationally exclusive, and admittedly narrow community are practicing “freedom of choice” while a black professor, brought in to support this community’s (rather belated) decision to dip a toe in the waters of so-called diversity, is practicing “self-segregation” for seeking to carve out a space where she’s not a social experiment but just another worshipper in a community of worshippers? Are these categories that have been sufficiently interrogated?

MLK is perhaps not the best person to invoke here—because while he might have spoken to a white America that was often only reluctantly and angrily listening (hence the whole assassination thing, natch), he spoke always from within a black community that was generally (though not unanimously) supportive and protective. And he was aware of this distinction. While MLK believed in and fought for integration, he also ALWAYS had doubts about the wisdom of integration in schools: recognizing that, in the ’60s in particular, it meant exposing black youth, in their most tender, formative years, to the virulence of adult prejudice and racism without any protection or any support ...If anyone’s interested in what psychologists say about racial identity formation and the necessity, at certain developmental periods, for “freedom of choice” in social, worship, and other settings, I’d recommend starting with Beverly Tatum’s “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria” and moving on from there. Otherwise, lay off the self-segregation talk until you’ve interrogated your own privilege in articulating this discourse.

On a personal note, I express my “freedom of choice” by worshiping in an integrated church community —as in 50% attended by the African American families who founded it and 50% attended by everyone else (and I do mean everyone, Asian, white, multiracial families, etc). However, I do attend special events and services at congregations that are more traditionally composed, and I don’t see whites storming the doors at black churches (except at election time), or hear any whites complaining about the monochrome hues in the pews at their churches ...

Interestingly, I’ll note that while church shopping several years ago, basically by sticking my finger at random in the phone book, I attended a Dutch Calvinist church (among many other predominantly white and all-white congregations) in my community. And I can say that while they were very nice people, and quite polite, and I was favorably impressed with their minister, not a single person spoke to me after the service or asked if I had enjoyed the message.

If there is self-segregation in worship, in society, it certainly works both ways. It takes a strong person to go someplace you may not be wanted. The professor is to be commended for being a pioneer — and for asking to have her own needs met as she is dedicated her life to meeting the needs of her school. If there is a compromise position to be worked out —as several writers here have suggested there may be — it is certainly up to her school’s administration to offer it.

Mad Grad Student, at 9:15 am EDT on April 28, 2008